Italian Senate votes for homo-unions (without adoption, without mutual commitments, but with tax privileges)

alfano-renzi-1-707831Even a small step into a wrong direction is a step into the wrong direction.

There is therefore no reason to rejoice in the fact that the silly “civil unions” law that the Italian Senate has approved today is much less bad than its authors originally intended. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that a more determined – resistance in particular by the Church hierarchy, but also by politicians describing themselves as Catholic, might have averted the approval of this legislative abnormity even in its watered-down form. As it appears, the destroyers of society and culture have today made another step forward, and as they progress, they will continue believing that history is on their side.

It is clear that even in its watered-down version the law would never have passed, had Prime Minister Matteo Renzi not called a vote of confidence that, if lost, would have led to the downfall of his cabinet and possibly new elections. Apparently among those voting in favour of the bill there were many who feared the loss of their government posts and parliamentary mandates, and the amenities attached to them. Thus the new law is from the outset tainted by the way it was brought into being: a result of, on the one hand, political blackmailing and, on the other hand, cowardice. Not the result of sound reflection.

True, the opponents among the supporters of this new law sold their skins dearly. The new same-sex “civil unions” will not comprise (at least for the time being) any right to adopt children, not even the most “harmless” version of that right, the so-called “stepchild adoption” (which has in many other countries been used as a wedge to open the door for wider “adoption rights”). It is also true that, in order to make quite sure that those “civil unions” will in no way be comparable to true marriages, i.e. those between a man and a woman, the “maxi-amendment” that was agreed at the last moment to secure a majority for the new bill, removed the following passage that had been copy-pasted from the Civil Code’s definition of marriage:

«Con la costituzione dell’unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso le parti acquistano gli stessi diritti e assumono i medesimi doveri; dall’unione civile deriva l’obbligo reciproco alla fedeltà, all’assistenza morale e materiale e alla coabitazione. Entrambe le parti sono tenute, ciascuna in relazione alle proprie sostanze e alla propria capacità di lavoro professionale e casalingo, a contribuire ai bisogni comuni».

In other words, the civil union between two persons of the same sex will not only include no obligation to sexual fidelity (which sodomites anyway are not famous for), but indeed no obligation to any other form of mutual moral or material support, and no obligation to live together under one roof.

You will wonder, dear reader, what kind of mutual obligations does the new law then stipulate for those who conclude a civil union? The answer to that question apparently is: none.

It is of course good that in this important aspect the new civil unions are not comparable to marriages. But what results from this compromise is nonetheless an absurdity. While not being equal to marriage with regard to the mutual commitments and obligations of the two partners, the new “civil union” nevertheless entitles them to the same treatment as a married couple in the areas of tax law, social welfare, housing, etc.

But in the context of marriage, these entitlements exist for a reason. They are granted to married couples because those couples, in begetting and raising children, provide an important contribution to the common good, and because the additional expense and the loss of income opportunities that usually come along with raising a family puts a considerable financial burden on their shoulders and makes them socially vulnerable. The promoters of same-sex civil unions have babbled a lot about “equality” – but where is the equality between, on the one hand, a married couple with one income and two children and, on the other hand, a same-sex couple with two incomes and no children? The new fiscal and social advantages granted to homo-couples will have to be financed by someone – they come at the expense of the rest of society.

So what this new law provides for is rights without obligations. It subsidizes the hedonistic, parasitarian, and unhealthy lifestyle of a small minority at the cost of everyone else.

Angelino Alfano, the Minister of the Interior, who claimed that today’s compromise “has averted a counter-natural anthropological revolution” is therefore wrong. To avert such a revolution, it is not sufficient that the cohabitation of two sodomites will not be called “marriage”, or that (for the time being) no adoptive children will be entrusted to them. The simple truth is: homosexual unions do not deserve to be legally recognized under whatever name, and even less to be rewarded through tax breaks or social benefits. They are not a social good. They are profoundly unhealthy, destructive, self-destructive, contrary to human dignity, and immoral.

Given Mr. Renzi’s difficulties in convincing his own coalition partners, one may assume that there is even less support for this new law among the wider population. Indeed, the only argument that Renzi had to offer was that “other countries have such a law, and we cannot be the last ones not to have it” – which will convince only those who are neither accustomed nor equipped to think for themselves.

But now it is time for Italians to fight back, if they don’t want their country to be brought down to the same level of moral decay as the rest of Europe. One possibility that seems to be still open is a popular initiative to call for an abrogatory referendum, similar to the one that has halted a law to introduce same-sex “marriages” in Slovenia. And of course, one hopes that the people, who have once again been steam-rolled by their political caste, will use the upcoming ECI “Mum Dad & Kids” to express their protest.